Monad

The term “monad” has a possibly irreducible metaphysical flavor. More than three-quarters of a century have passed since the first publication of the Cartesian Meditations in French. As a result, we have become accustomed to the idea that this term can be associated with phenomenology. However, it is still difficult to understand how and why a discipline which is based on the “principle of all principles” can make use of a word which almost unavoidably leads us to a fundamentally speculative discourse. The principle of all principles certainly does not forbid that we develop the content of our intuitions beyond the limited space of intuitions themselves, but does this mean that we can reach a point where the meaning of our statements is fully out of sight, if not even in contradiction with the intuitions that its meaning is supposedly derived from? And should we really make use of a word which suggests that there are only mirrors and their images? Can we use a word which implies that each subject is eternal, and in her infinite profundities she has traces of the entire infinite speculative universe? Can we make use of a word that, willingly or not, is partially indebted to Cartesian dualism? And can we accept a word that, ultimately, connects with an invocation of an almighty God, in order to make sure that the universe is what we all perceive in all of its glorious harmony? Husserl, who was certainly not unaware of the metaphysico-speculative burden that the word “monad” carries, thought we should make use of it, although we have to “purify” its meaning. In what follows, we will see if and how this purification can be achieved.